REV. FR. JOSE P. ZAFRA III vs. ATTY. RENATO B. PAGATPATAN
A.C. No. 12457 (Formerly CBD Case No. 16-5128), April 02, 2019
PER CURIAM:
Facts:
Complanant filed a criminal case for estafa against Jojo R. Buniel (Buniel) and Anna Liza M.
Guirnalda (Guirnalda) where respondent is the latter’s counsel on record. While the criminal case
is pending, respondent sent a letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del
Sur requesting an investigation of complainant for allegedly concocting stories against his
clients.
Complainant was eventually investigated by the Board of Consultors with the Bishop, where he
was able to clear his name. Thereafter, complainant filed a complaint against respondent with the
IBP alleging arguing that the latter’s act violates the CPR. Further, he discovered that respondent
engaged in unauthorized practice of law since he is still suspended from the practice of law.
In his defense, respondent reiterated that the letter was not intended to malign complainant’s
reputation and that he is not engaged in the practice of law. The Board of governors found that
the sending of letter is not in violation of the CPR but the unauthorized practice of law is.
Issue:
Whether respondent violates the CPR
Ruling: Yes
This Court cannot subscribe to Atty. Pagatpatan's claims that he is merely espousing his clients'
cause in writing the letter-request for investigation of Fr. Zafra. On record, We find that Atty.
Pagatpatan admits to writing the letter to the Bishop of the Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur
in order to resolve the estafa case since settlement proceedings with the regular courts proved to
be futile. To Our mind, Atty. Pagatpatan's letter-request was not based on a sincere purpose to
discipline Fr. Zafra for his actions, but mainly to bring threat to Fr. Zafra and force him to settle
the estafa case filed against his clients. Atty. Pagatpatan did not want the estafa case to proceed
to a full-blown trial. On many occasions, this Court has reminded that lawyers are duty-bound
"to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is
charged." This is in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. It is of no consequence that
the letter of Atty. Pagatpatan is filed with the Bishop of Diocese of Tandag, Surigao Del Sur.
Pagatpatan, as a member of the bar, is an "oath-bound servant of the law, whose first duty is not
to his client but to the administration of justice and whose conduct ought to be and must be
scrupulously observant of law and ethics." This Court finds that Atty. Pagatpatan was
motivated by malice in writing said letter. However, disbarment, as prayed for by Fr. Zafra, is a
penalty too severe for said action considering the facts show that Atty. Pagatpatan is only guilty
of simple misconduct.
The more pressing issue to be tackled in this case is the fact that Atty. Pagatpatan has been
practicing law despite the issuance of a suspension order by this Court on June 15, 2005. There
were no records showing that he served said suspension or moved to lift said order because Atty.
Pagatpatan, himself, admits that he continued practicing the legal profession notwithstanding
said order.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Sec. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore. - A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court or for corruptly or willfully appearing
as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases
at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. (Emphasis Ours)
On record, Atty. Pagatpatan had been representing party litigants in court from 2005 until the
instant case was filed before the IBP in 2016. Atty. Pagatpatan has made a mockery of this
Court's authority by defying this Court's suspension order for over eleven (11) years. If Fr. Zafra
had not filed the instant case, Atty. Pagatpatan would have continued disregarding the
suspension order of this Court. His actions clearly constitute gross misconduct as defined under
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, which is a sufficient cause for suspension or
disbarment.
This Court emphasizes that the practice of law is not a right but a mere privilege and, as such,
must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Supreme Court to exact compliance with the
lawyer's public responsibilities. Whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer
worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and of the public, it becomes not only the right
but also the duty of the Supreme Court, which made him one of its officers and gave him the
privilege of ministering within its Bar, to withdraw that privilege.